English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of Samuel Pufendorf’s road from his early  Elementa jurisprudentiae universalis , published in late 1660 to the eight ‘books’ of  De jure naturae et gentium  from 1672. In the latter, Pufendorf completed a methodical shift from the  more geometrico  method to a universal jurisprudence based upon a wide range of humanistic arts, including history. In this connection, Pufendorf gave more credit to Hugo Grotius and his  De jure belli ac pacis  than in the earlier work. The paper redefines the role that Pufendorf’s contacts with the Chief Minister from Mainz, Johann Christian von Boineburg and his closest collaborators, Hermann Conring and Johann Heinrich Boecler played in Pufendorf’s shift of approach to ‘universal jurisprudence’. Hitherto underexplored correspondence of Boineburg with Boecler permits a reconstruction of the polemic that Boineburg incited and fuelled between Pufendorf and Boecler. Pufendorf’s reflections of the events in the Preface of the first edition of  De jure naturae et gentium  and later Christian Thomasius’s account in  Paulo plenior, historia juris naturalis  made the intermezzo into an essential part of the foundation myth of modern natural law.

Johann Christian von Boineburg, Samuel Pufendorf, and the foundation myth of modern natural law